AnnaGilmour comments on The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom - Less Wrong

42 Post author: komponisto 13 December 2009 04:16AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (632)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 15 December 2009 04:32:42PM 1 point [-]

The idea of a staged burglary came from Mignini and was unsubstantiated. Since then, it has been debunked. He claimed it was staged due to two shards of glass on clothing. Those shards close up were revealed to be polka dots.

Comment author: brazil84 15 December 2009 05:50:44PM 0 points [-]

Well do you agree that one of the bedrooms had clothing and such strewn around it while the owner of the room testified that the room had been left orderly?

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 15 December 2009 05:57:01PM 2 points [-]

Logically, items strewn around the room does not implicate Amanda. The connection of the messy room and Amanda was invented by the prosecution. It could be explained by various means, namely, during the struggle with the perpetrator and Meredith, or more likely, the perpetrator looking for something to steal.

Comment author: brazil84 15 December 2009 06:10:28PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure what your point is. I thought you were claiming that there was essentially no evidence which reasonably supports the hypothesis that somebody staged a burglary or break-in.

Now it seems you admit that there is such evidence but believe it could be explained away.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 15 December 2009 06:17:51PM 1 point [-]

I don't think there is evidence of a staged break-in. I think there is evidence of a break-in.

Comment author: brazil84 15 December 2009 06:20:03PM 0 points [-]

Well do you agree that the room's occupant testified that there had been valuable items in plain view, none of which were taken?

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 15 December 2009 06:38:59PM 1 point [-]

I think he was looking for money. It was the 1st of the month and rent was due. Meredith had dated casually a guy downstairs and Rudy had hung out there. Also, I think it is likely he didn't expect to find anyone home and was interrupted when Meredith came home early, for an early night. I don't think he was planning to take objects, though might have if uninterrupted.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 15 December 2009 06:42:02PM 2 points [-]

Also, Meredith's $300 was missing, and somehow he had the money to ride a train the next day to Germany.

Comment author: brazil84 15 December 2009 06:51:14PM 0 points [-]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. There is a difference between saying that evidence can be explained away and saying that the evidence does not exist.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 15 December 2009 07:00:42PM 1 point [-]

To have evidence of a break-in is different than having evidence of a staged break-in. Since there is evidence of a break-in, but not any that would say it was staged, there is evidence of an invented idea of a staged break-in. I'm not saying that a lack of evidence of something being staged means it wasn't. But going the rules in the post, there is nothing that would indicate it was staged from the evidence itself. That part is fallacious. It exists in the mind of Mignini, not in the evidence.

Does that clarify what I mean?

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 15 December 2009 07:05:27PM 1 point [-]

I'm sayinig he made up the staged part, since the evidence for a staging (rather than a break-in) did not exist in the crime scene. He imposed his ideas on the reality before him. He looked for things to support his idea, and those things were shown to be false or unrelated logically to Amanda.

Comment author: brazil84 15 December 2009 07:12:54PM 0 points [-]

Not really. For example, the ransacking of a room but the failure to take valuable items in plain view is evidence of a staging. Yes, there are other explanations for this evidence but that does not mean it's not evidence of a staging.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 December 2009 10:31:09PM 0 points [-]

I thought you were claiming that there was essentially no evidence which reasonably supports the hypothesis that somebody staged a burglary or break-in.

The claim was that there was essentially no evidence which reasonably supports the hypothesis that the burglary was staged.

Comment author: brazil84 16 December 2009 02:01:38AM 0 points [-]

Ok, so again my question:

"do you agree that one of the bedrooms had clothing and such strewn around it while the owner of the room testified that the room had been left orderly?"

And yes, I am well aware that there are other possible explanations for this evidence besides staging.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 December 2009 02:11:24AM *  0 points [-]

This is a relevant question. It is not evidence that I weigh particularly highly given what I know about witness testimonies, particularly those under motivated prompting. But it is evidence.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 15 December 2009 04:33:22PM 0 points [-]

The only evidence was a broken window. He provided the unbased theoretical narrative (as usual).